Slides and text submitted by a regular CASE CLOSED blog participant …

These simulations were performed using NIST’s EDX quantitative analysis software and data from the AFIP lab report.

The weight percentage of silicon in the Daschle powder is calculated to be 2.25%. This is slightly higher than the 1.45% released by the FBI.

But much more significant than that is the New York Post powder. It is calculated to contain 32.75% silicon. The FBI claim there “was insufficient sample” to determine the quantity of silicon in this powder. This is demonstrably untrue.

The reason the FBI do not want people to know the weight percentage of silicon in the New York Post powder can be explained as follows.

If they admit 30% content they are then admitting deliberate addition of a silicon chemical for all the attack powders.

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

******

Posted on PROMED by Stuart Jacobsen …

Subject: 6 unanswered questions

******

NOTE: ProMED-mail is a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases

(1) The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) published a Newsletter in October 2002 in which they stated: “Fort Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.” <http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/AFIP.html>

In their Newsletter AFIP also included an EDX spectrum of a reference sample of silica titled “Silicon Dioxide (Silica), as it appears
through energy dispersive X-ray analysis”

******

1.1: What was in the AFIP EDX data that allowed them to conclude that silica was a deliberate additive?

1.2: The complete set of EDX spectra and scanning electron microscope pictures for all of the attack powder samples measured by AFIP need to be published in order for independent experts in EDX spectroscopy to assess the validity of AFIP’s conclusion that silica was a deliberate additive.

******

(2) In April 2002 information that an “unusual chemical” had been found coating the attack powders was provided by senior government officials to Newsweek, CNN and the Washington Post. Later on it was revealed by the FBI that this “unusual chemical” was “polymerized glass.”

“Government sources tell Newsweek that the secret new analysis shows anthrax found in a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy was ground to a microscopic fineness not achieved by U.S. biological-weapons experts. The Leahy anthrax — mailed in an envelope that was recovered unopened from a Washington post office last November [2001] — also was coated with a chemical compound unknown to experts who have worked in the field for years; the coating matches no known anthrax samples ever recovered from biological-weapons producers anywhere in the world, including Iraq and the former Soviet Union. The combination of the intense milling of the bacteria and the unusual coating produced an anthrax powder so fine and fluffy that individually coated anthrax spores were found in the Leahy envelope, something that U.S. bioweapons experts had never seen.”
Source: Washington Post, 9 Apr 2002.
<http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxpowdernotroutine.html>
Powder Used in Anthrax Attacks ‘Was Not Routine’

By: Joby Warrick, Washington Post Staff Writer

“Whoever concocted the wispy white powder used in last fall’s [2001] anthrax attacks followed a recipe markedly different from the ones commonly used by scientists in the United States or any other country known to have biological weapons, law enforcement sources said yesterday.

“Extensive lab tests of the anthrax powder have revealed new details about how the powder was made, including the identity of a chemical used to coat the trillions of microscopic spores to keep them from clumping together. Sources close to the investigation declined to name the chemical but said its presence was something of a surprise.

“The powder’s formulation ‘was not routine,’ said one law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ‘Somebody had to have special knowledge and experience to do this,’ the official said.”

“Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That’s what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.”

******

2.1: What laboratory results were performed in order for the FBI to conclude that “polymerized glass” was individually coating the spores?

2.2: The complete set of laboratory data, including any and all spectroscopic results, that led to this conclusion needs to be published in order for independent experts in the chemistry of silanes, siloxanes and polysiloxanes to assess the conclusion that polymerized glass was present as a spore coating.

“There has been a great deal written regarding the presence of silicon in the samples and the location of that silicon. The FBI
Laboratory used Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) to quantify silicon, as well as other
elements, in the Leahy letter spore powder. The results indicated the Leahy spores contained 1.45 percent by weight. The New York Post letter spore powder was qualitatively analyzed using ICP-OES and was found to have Silicon present in the sample. However, the limited quantity of recovered material precluded a reliable numerical measurement of any elements present within this powder. Insufficient quantities ofboth the Daschle and Brokaw letters spore powders precluded the analysis of these samples using this elemental analysis technique.”

******

3.1: What is the minimum amount of sample needed to perform accurate quantitative elemental analysis on spore samples?

3.2: All of the FBI’s ICP-OES data for all of the spore powders they measured needs to be released and published for independent verification by experts in analytical chemistry.

4.2: Did Pacific Northwest National Labs determine the elemental quantities of silicon and other elements in the attack powders? What was the quantity of silicon they determined for each powder?

******

(5) Amount of spores needed for all of the attack letters: The single flask of RMR-1029 consisted at its origination date of 30g of Ames anthrax spores in a slurry of 1 liter of water. The resources needed to make this 30g of spores consisted of a combination of 12 x 10 liter fermentor runs at Dugway Proving Ground and 22 flask culture lots made at USAMRIID. Dr Bruce Ivins had calculated that to make 30g of spores at USAMRIID it would take approximately one year of work, which is why USAMRIID contracted the large fermentor runs at Dugway in order to fulfill their need for spores for animal vaccine challenge studies.

******

5.1: What calculations did the FBI labs perform that allowed them to conclude that the total quantity of spores needed for all the mailed letters could be made by a single person over a few evenings?

In this paper, which was concerned with manufacturing a powder that would display similar aerosol and dispersability behavior to the Daschle powder, the authors make the following statement: “In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added).”

******

6.1: Were the authors from Dugway Proving Ground privy to the nature of the powder used in the attacks? What led the authors to conclude that the spores used in the attacks were “fluidized?”

The New York Times says the FBI’s anthrax case has “too many loose ends.” Find out where some of those looses ends might have originated in my novel CASE CLOSED. Sure it’s fiction, but many readers, including a highly respected member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, think my premise is actually “quite plausible.”

Extracts from Jim White’s article MOST LIKELY SOUCES OF SILICON IN ANTHRAX ATTACK SPORES ARGUES AGAINST PRODUCTION BY IVINS (3/20/10) …

If the silicon in the anthrax attack spores does indeed come from the material having been cultured in the presence of a silicone antifoam agent that also had silica present, then the FBI’s conclusion that Bruce Ivins acted alone in the attacks is called into serious doubt.

The alternative explanation to Ivins growing 36 two liter cultures is one fermenter run of approximately 70 liters or more. Note that the FBI investigative summary informs us that Dugway was engaged for the 1997 work precisely because Ivins did not have access to large scale culture equipment.

If Ivins had grown the spores in his shake flask equipment, he would have had no reason to include any sort of antifoam agent, much less one containing silica, because antifoam is just not used in shake flasks.

It also seems unlikely that Ivins would have changed his culture process to produce the attack material. If he did not introduce silicon in his early shake flask cultures (and we know he didn’t from the silicon analysis of the RMR-1029 material), it seems unlikely he would have done so with shake flasks for the attack material.

Note also from the Science report that the only other elevated (but not as high as the attack spores) silicon content spores analyzed came from Dugway, where we know that fermenters are available.

In conclusion, the finding of high silicon in the spores used in the anthrax attacks suggests that these spores were grown in a large fermenter that used an antifoam agent containing silica.

Since Bruce Ivins did not have access to a large fermenter, fermenter growth would suggest that he could not have acted alone in the attacks.

******

Frederick News Post editorial – 7/31/09

The FBI’s case against Ivins is almost wholly circumstantial.

In March, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced the Anthrax Investigation Act in Congress. The bill would establish a national commission akin to the one created to study the 2001 terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, this bill remains stalled in Congress.

We urge our congressional representatives to support this legislation.

no physical evidence in Dr. Ivins’ home, car, clothes or anywhere else that ties him to the crime.

In the absence of real evidence, and in the certain knowledge that hundreds of people had access to the flask RMR-1029, for the FBI to assert that Dr. Ivins is the sole perpetrator is ludicrous on its face. That assertion is something the FBI cannot prove.

Senator Specter was right; the FBI would never get a conviction on what they had.

So what is the FBI up to?

First of all, the FBI is not stupid. They know as well as we do that their evidence is non-existent. They know full well that they could never prove there pitiful case in court. They avoided that problem by charging a dead man, so they would never have to testify in court, under oath, and subject to the sharp questions of a capable defense attorney.

It is the terrifying prospect that the FBI is purposely hiding the true perpetrators, or covering up some other dark secrets, that prompted me to write my novel CASE CLOSED, in which I present a fictional scenario to explain the FBI’s failure to solve the case.

If you care about the truth in the anthrax case, and the lack of truth in the FBI’s anthrax investigation, you will be challenged by the scenario I present in CASE CLOSED. You will, like many other readers, find my story “all too plausible” and it will terrify you to think that something like what I describe could very likely have occurred.

They admitted that they found the record breaking level of 1.45% silicon.

They apparently don’t believe this is significant at all (especially since it doesn’t provide any link whatsoever to Ivins or Detrick).

But let’s consider what it means when they claim the NYP analysis by ICP was somehow “unreliable” as Chris Hassell said today to the NAS.

When ICP is performed a tiny fraction (less than 1ml) of sample is nebulized in a chamber:

The first step in analysis is the introduction of the sample. This has been achieved in ICP-MS through a variety of means.

The most common method is the use of a nebulizer. This is a device which converts liquids into an aerosol, and that aerosol can then be swept into the plasma to create the ions. Nebulizers work best with simple liquid samples (i.e. solutions).

So, if they are claiming in their response that ICP DID provide the result that there WAS silicon in the NYP sample, then they must have a number for this. ICP is not a “yes or no” analysis. It provides a number. The record breaking number of 1.45% was provided for the Leahy sample – but for some reason the NYP number was NOT given.

It is no excuse to say that they ran out of sample. As described above – once a sample of solution is made up it can be used to provide HUNDREDS of small volume nebulized aliquots into the ICP machine.

The REAL reason that the NYP analysis is not being provided is because it is massive. The % of silicon is more than 10% – in fact it’s above to 50%. The NYP sample is actually MOSTLY silicon.

The AFIP lab results (the results that the FBI refused to provide to Sandia) clearly demonstrate this.

The FBI labs were uncomfortable enough releasing the record breaking 1.45% silicon in the Leahy sample.

They are now stonewalling in producing the AFIP report under FOIA.

“The silicon is probably the most important scientific evidence that would lead anybody to question whether Bruce was capable of making these spores,” says Gerald P. Andrews, Bruce Ivins’ former boss.

The original government position was that silicon was added to the anthrax by the person who prepared the powder for mailing.

SInce Iraq was one of 3 countries with that capability (the U.S. and Russia are the others), the silicon addition allowed suspicion to fall on Iraq and add another plank in the case for invading Iraq in the Bush/Cheney war of choice. See Colin Powell at the U.N. waving a vial of anthrax and warning that Iraq had bioweapons and the ability to deliver them to the eastern shores of the U.S.

Now, however, Dr. Bruce Ivins has been identified by the FBI as the sole perpetrator, and there seems to be a concensus that Ivins did not have the capability or wherewithall to add silicon.

OOPS!

Suddenly, the government scientist has changed his view. How convenient.

“Weinstein raises some very interesting and disturbing theories.CASE CLOSED is a great read,suspenseful anda real page turner. Please tell me it’s not true!”

“You will not want to stop reading… Lew Weinstein addresses this case withthe pen of a highly skilled investigator.”

******

silicon evidence points beyond Fort Detrick and Dr. Bruce Ivins

“Anonymous Scientist” writes …

When the FBI sought a search warrant from a judge to search Ivins’ home and Detrick they stated they were looking to find evidence including spores with a unique never-before-seen silicon signature.

This is contained in the affidavit released just after the news of Ivins’ death came out, stating: “Microscopic examination of the evidentiary spore powders recovered from all four letters identified an elemental signature of Silicon within the spores. This Silicon signature had not been previously described for Bacillus anthracis organisms.”

The silicon found in the mailed spores is very significant. The FBI admit that 1.45% silicon was found in the Leahy spores. That’s a huge amount – higher than any amount that’s ever been seen before in spore preparations – even ones where silicon has been deliberately added (which Detrick never does).

But the FBI NEVER DID FIND SPORES LIKE THIS IN DETRICK. And yet their official story today is that Ivins must have managed to make them – somehow.

If the FBI cannot explain how that got there,

then they have to look beyond Detrick.

In addition, Sandia showed that the spores were not coated with silica nanoparticles (an old technology to weaponize spores). Instead Sandia found a layer of polysiloxane on the spore coat but under the exosprorium.

They couldn’t explain how it got there, but they concluded it must be some freakish “accident”.

However, things have advanced since the old nanoparticle technology days and a more sophisticated way to weaponize spores is to use polymerized glass – silicon in a liquid form which polymerizes on the spore coat. That explains how it got there.

The FBI themselves said they found polymerized glass back in April 2002 – but today they have apparently changed their minds about that, and the FBI and Sandia are apparently ignoring that April 2002 announcement as if it never took place.

The point is – all of this points to a lab other than Detrick,

and to a scientist other than the supposed (according to the FBI) sole perpetrator Dr. Bruce Ivins.

The Defense Intelligence Agency provided me various documents and citations in the possession Ayman Zawahiri and his associates, including a number relating to selective culture medium, in order to share with you the dangers of scientific openness.

The Al-Qaida documents were discovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in Fall 2001. The subject was addressed in correspondence between Ayman Zawahiri and his military commander Mohammed Atef in the Spring of 1999. Vice President Cheney was briefed in December 2001. He explained to the CIA and FBI at the time that it was critical that they fully cooperate in order to determine whether there was any connection between these documents and the anthrax mailings in the US.

As the FBI WMD Chief explained in August 2008, the silica could have been in the culture medium.

The fact, as Dr. Michaels explained, that it was absorbed in the spore coats, points to this use in the culture medium suggested by the FBI.

a scientist who chooses to remain anonymous has written to me as follows …

The FBI have admitted that they FAILED to reproduce the level of silicon in the mailed spores.

In other words, with everything at their disposal, they could still not make spores containing the same amount of silicon as the mailed spores. In other words – they do not even understand how the mailed spores were made. And yet they are claiming that Ivins must have managed this somehow – they just don’t know how. But they just know he must have.

Sandia detected silicon on the spore coat – not INSIDE the spores as Lake would like to believe.

The spore coat is located underneath a loose, permeable layer called the exosporium. Previous studies have clearly shown that even large molecules can penetrate the exosporium. Thus the Sandia results cannot rule out that the spores were treated with a siloxane monomer molecule which penetrated the exosporium and polymerized, coating the spores, but underneath an exosporium which collapsed on the coiat once dried.

The Sandia results showed that the spectrum of the silicon on the spore coat was INDISTINGUISHABLE from the chemcial polysiloxane. Given the large silicon concentration present this is the most likely explanation for the silicon content. Whoever made these spores deliberately added a silicon compound to make the spore surafces hydrophobic so they would not clump.

Indeed – the FBI themselves leaked information to the media back in April 2002 indicating that an unusual chemical was found in the spores – later on that chemical was revealed to be polymerized glass. Polymerized glass is polysiloxane.

But since none of this can be linked to Detrick or Ivins, the FBI have apparently decided to pretend none of this silicon fingerprint forensic evidence is really that important.

It’s all just some unexplained coincidence. Ivins must have managed it somehow.